I see a lot of "up to" 6 fps, not just 6 fps, so I wonder what the weasel words are hiding. I also read that auto-AF-select is even slower and less useful than the 5D2's.

So I am using a shutter speed of 1 /500 second.... it shoots 6 fps..... Then I set for a shutter speed of 1/2 second... it will only shoot at 2fps. That's what "up to 6fps" means... You drop the shutter speed below 1/6 of a second and the math does not work.

Also... what is the time required to focus? Slap on a 100L, get poor enough light and a particularly hard to focus upon subject, and listen to the lens hunt for focus..... how do you get 6fps when it takes 4 or 5 seconds to focus each shot?

"up to" is to keep people from saying the specs are lying when they are attempting the impossible.

or did I miss it? The 5D3 has no IQ improvement over the 5D2. Who cares??

Those of us who have to work for a living and yet want wacky stuff like usable pictures of our kids.

This is certainly a reasonable use case, but I'm left wondering what is it about the the 5D3 that truly does not yield usable pictures of our kids? To be sure, there improvement in the 5D3 for kids that move .

However, I assume here that you are not talking about 'usable' pictures you are making an oblique reference to the only other IQ related detail for which the 5D3 is known to be disadvantaged compared to the competition, and I rather agree that the the ability to lift shadows from severely under exposed handheld images at low ISO would be nice to have even if not used very often and not really essential to produce useable pictures of our kids. On a more practical note, a substantial increase in DR would benefit candid head shots in bright sun where you want to tame the very harsh shadows and deep

FPS makes a substantial difference when one's subject is both highly mobile and incapable of looking at you.

I've missed countless moments with my son between the 5D2's poky frames. And others due to mirror slap and poky AF. I've started shooting him with a 70-200 f/4 just so I can have enough subject distance so the AF isn't as much of a factor.

FPS makes a substantial difference when one's subject is both highly mobile and incapable of looking at you.

I've missed countless moments with my son between the 5D2's poky frames. And others due to mirror slap and poky AF. I've started shooting him with a 70-200 f/4 just so I can have enough subject distance so the AF isn't as much of a factor.

Mirror slap is a function of design, not of fps.

So your scenarios are in fact AF system limited, arguably the area of most significant functional improvement of the 5D3 over the 5D2. Therefore the 5D3 will bring you instant gratifiction! If you need more than 6fps, then a move to the rumored 7D2 might be best instead of a 5D3, assuming of course that its AF system gets the rumored improvements and acheives the rumored 10-ish fps. To improve FF fps over the 5D3 requires a 1DX of course.

But this thread is about big MP, so we digress... back on topic I doubt that a big MP camera is going to help much in the area of fps

No, what the Canon community here on CR (and, I would argue, the photographic community at large given how many 5D III's have sold) is saying is that IQ is not solely the domain of the image sensor. There are other aspects of IQ as well. The AF system is indeed a very significant factor that assists photographers in maximizing IQ. The increase in frame rate is another significant factor in maximizing IQ.

I'd like to know how a higher frame rate delivers better pictures. What it really delivers is pictures faster but if you know something I don't, please go ahead...

A high fps also introduces more shake into the camera body because the slap of that mirror against the camera body transfers momentum from the mirror to the camera.

A higher frame rate delivers a greater chance that you will get better pictures. A better picture is not simply one that is more sharp, either. It is also the one captured at the right moment in time...where the subject has exactly the right pose, is not blinking, is looking at the camera, etc. etc. Sharpness is key, but it is not the only key factor in getting a "better photo".

The best sensor in the world doesn't matter a wit if its AF system and frame rate are low enough such that you can't actually capture the one frame where everything is still and sharp...a soft frame is a soft frame, regardless of whether the sensor pumps out beautifully soft pixels or not.

Again, frame rate does not correlate with sharpness. Just look at the 1D3. 10fps that delivered less than 50% usable pictures due to AF quirkiness. Boy was that a dog of a camera for sports photographers.

A high frame rate can correlate with sharpness, when a subject is periodically moving and you want a frame where it is not. In the case of bird photography specifically, birds have periods of fast action, interleaved with moments of stillness. You need at least 6fps, better 8-10fps, such that in any burst of frames you get one where the subject is perfectly still. Even at high shutter speeds like 1/1250th or 1/1600th and a perfectly stable camera, the fast motion of a bird can still cause blurring. The 5D III is certainly better in this regard than its predecessor. Obviously there are even better options, but that does not invalidate the fact that the 5D III is better than its predecessor, by 54%.

The issues with the 1D III are not extant in the 5D III. Blaming the 5D III for the problems of an unrelated predecessor is another copout.

I'd offer that there are far more photographers who shoot high action in one form or another who use ISO settings 800 and above than photographers who shoot still scenes or low action and use ISO settings 400 and below. To the greater majority of photographers, the AF system and frame rate are critical factors to attaining the IQ they require. To that end, I'd say Canon did well by their customers, and clearly listened to what their customers were asking for...less megapixels, higher ISO, less noise at higher ISO (hell, even I asked for that!!! )

If I was a professional sports shooter, I wouldn't be using the 5DIII - except for those post match shots of presentations, etc, where a flash is often used.

Sure, if you were a professional sports shooter. But there are also wildlife shooters. Bird photographers. Arial photographers (some who use the 1D line, some who were using the 7D line but have been all too happy to move to the 5D III). Sports is not the only source of high speed action. I chose my terms carefully. The 5D III, as a general purpose camera, is ideal in an extremely broad set of circumstances. The 1D X is obviously the better choice for the highest speed action, but the 5D III does the job extremely well well when money is an issue.

Perhaps your finger-pressing ability is not that fine, however our minds can indeed sense minute differences. Our ability to measure time perceptually is not limited to 1-second increments, and even if we cannot send an impulse from our brains to our fingers in 1/20th of a second, that does not mean we cannot sense the difference between 1/10th and 1/20th of a second. Especially in the context of a camera shutter...looking through the viewfinder, it is very easy to recognize a TWO-FOLD difference in shutter performance, especially when holding the shutter button down and watching frame after frame race past at nearly double the speed. I'll say that again...a TWO FOLD, FACTOR OF TWO, 100% or DOUBLE the difference in shutter speed...relatively speaking, that is a huge difference!

You're mixing two very different things up in the one paragraph as if they were the same. And the way you're screaming about 6fps is similar to the way people screamed about more megapixels in days gone by. *yawn*

Emphasising, not screaming. But I do understand the misunderstanding. The internet, a woefully inadequate communication mechanism. That said, I wasn't over-emphasising 6fps. I was actually directly addressing the naivete of your use of finger-pressing ability to the minds ability to detect sub-second differences in the timing of something. It doesn't matter if the difference is 3fps to 6fps, or 8fps to 12fps...the differences there from a relative standpoint are quite noticeable.

But again, taking more pictures every second has nothing to do with IQ. Really, it just determines how quickly our SF/SD/HDD fills up.

Again, your missing the point. The notion that IQ is purely dependent upon the sensor is a fallacy. Getting a quality image means getting the little aspects of each key thing within the image correct. And that means all of the little aspects correct...not just exposure, not just sharpness, but composition, subject position, pose, head angle, and eye contact. More frames per second, larger frame buffer, better AF system, etc. all lead to better IQ. The sensor is certainly the most important factor in getting each and every individual pixel that is recorded perfect, but if you don't record the right thing...well, it doesn't matter how good your pixels are. The wrong frame is the wrong frame. Bad focus is bad focus. The best pixels in the world won't give you enough post-process editing latitude to fix those issues.

What exactly is "ordinary IQ"? I think your generalizing a bit too much...

The 5DII/5DIII IQ is now no longer anything special as it was when the 5DII debuted. It is now back in the pack and even various APS-C sensors out-do it.

It really depends on whether APS-C sensors out-do it. If you can get the same number of frames in focus, capture enough frames to get "the right frame", and do so with the same low level of photon noise at high ISO as the 5D III...then sure, the 5D III is "only as good as some potentially existent APS-C cameras". But, you still have to factor in the ability of the 5D III to get more shots in focus, and capture more frames in any given burst such that you get the one with your subject (which may be human, animal, bird, etc.) properly composed, in a proper pose or orientation, with the proper expression and eye contact, etc. etc.

My 7D is a pretty great camera. It has a high frame rate, a good AF system that does a great job, but can bail out and get sketchy at any moment. With quality L-series glass it pounds out the sharp like you wouldn't believe. But...the 5D III, despite its SLOWER frame rate, still out-does it because of the better AF system. The larger pixels on the 5D III result in much better noise characteristics, allowing usable ISO to jump from around ISO 1600-2500 on the 7D to as high as 12800 on the 5D III, while concurrently making ISO 1600 WORLDS BETTER.

IQ is dependent upon multiple factors. Sensor is only one of many. As I said previously (not sure which thread, maybe this one), if one were to rank the most important factors in IQ, I'd say the best rankings would be: Sensor is #3. Frame rate is #2. AF system is #1! Sensor only matters if the other two factors do their job, *lock focus* and capture the *right* frame.

No, what the Canon community here on CR (and, I would argue, the photographic community at large given how many 5D III's have sold) is saying is that IQ is not solely the domain of the image sensor. There are other aspects of IQ as well. The AF system is indeed a very significant factor that assists photographers in maximizing IQ. The increase in frame rate is another significant factor in maximizing IQ.

I'd like to know how a higher frame rate delivers better pictures. What it really delivers is pictures faster but if you know something I don't, please go ahead...

A high fps also introduces more shake into the camera body because the slap of that mirror against the camera body transfers momentum from the mirror to the camera.

A higher frame rate delivers a greater chance that you will get better pictures. A better picture is not simply one that is more sharp, either. It is also the one captured at the right moment in time...where the subject has exactly the right pose, is not blinking, is looking at the camera, etc. etc. Sharpness is key, but it is not the only key factor in getting a "better photo".

I like the Osprey example....

I wish to take a picture of an Osprey picking a fish out of the river.... this happens pretty fast, about 2 or 3 tenths of a second. This is faster than my reaction time so I have to anticipate the action and hope that my picture is taken at the right time... and with the speed things are moving I only get one shot.

Beside me is another photographer with a 1Dx set to take a burst at 10 frames per second. The other photographer starts thier burst before the Osprey hits the water and it continues until the fish is well clear. My picture is of the claws going into the water.. my timing is off. The other photographer has a string of twenty or so pictures from the Osprey approaching the water, through the grab, and as the catch clears the water. I have a great shot. The other photographer has twenty great shots, one or two of which show the intended image.

That is an indisputable reason for the use of bursts and how they can improve composition.

No, what the Canon community here on CR (and, I would argue, the photographic community at large given how many 5D III's have sold) is saying is that IQ is not solely the domain of the image sensor. There are other aspects of IQ as well. The AF system is indeed a very significant factor that assists photographers in maximizing IQ. The increase in frame rate is another significant factor in maximizing IQ.

I'd like to know how a higher frame rate delivers better pictures. What it really delivers is pictures faster but if you know something I don't, please go ahead...

A high fps also introduces more shake into the camera body because the slap of that mirror against the camera body transfers momentum from the mirror to the camera.

A higher frame rate delivers a greater chance that you will get better pictures. A better picture is not simply one that is more sharp, either. It is also the one captured at the right moment in time...where the subject has exactly the right pose, is not blinking, is looking at the camera, etc. etc. Sharpness is key, but it is not the only key factor in getting a "better photo".

I like the Osprey example....

I wish to take a picture of an Osprey picking a fish out of the river.... this happens pretty fast, about 2 or 3 tenths of a second. This is faster than my reaction time so I have to anticipate the action and hope that my picture is taken at the right time... and with the speed things are moving I only get one shot.

Beside me is another photographer with a 1Dx set to take a burst at 10 frames per second. The other photographer starts thier burst before the Osprey hits the water and it continues until the fish is well clear. My picture is of the claws going into the water.. my timing is off. The other photographer has a string of twenty or so pictures from the Osprey approaching the water, through the grab, and as the catch clears the water. I have a great shot. The other photographer has twenty great shots, one or two of which show the intended image.

That is an indisputable reason for the use of bursts and how they can improve composition.

I didn't regret my choice to have 4 fps on full frame or 6 in dx mode when i made photos during my trip.

But NOW i regret it SO much that i didn't have 10 fps..., It's not only that it makes it ''easier'' to capture the moment, more important : you capture much more from the moment ( as long as it doesn't last 2 long and your stuck with a full buffer)

I cannot imagine going back to 4 fps for wildlife...., 8 fps would be a minimum for me.

As far as numbers of megapixels and frame rate are concerned... the real bottleneck is not reading the sensor, it's processing the data afterwards.

For example, we pick on a 60D with a digic4 processor and an 18Mp sensor. It is capable of reading that sensor 60 times per second, but can only process 5.9 frames per second.

And I know this will be controversial, but this is one of those cases where a mirrorless design is superior.... no mirror to shake the camera or to slow down the burst. Even a gopro can read it's 11Mp sensor 240 times per second.... Every design decision has it's plusses and minuses, nothing is perfect for everyone.

As far as numbers of megapixels and frame rate are concerned... the real bottleneck is not reading the sensor, it's processing the data afterwards.

For example, we pick on a 60D with a digic4 processor and an 18Mp sensor. It is capable of reading that sensor 60 times per second, but can only process 5.9 frames per second.

And I know this will be controversial, but this is one of those cases where a mirrorless design is superior.... no mirror to shake the camera or to slow down the burst. Even a gopro can read it's 11Mp sensor 240 times per second.... Every design decision has it's plusses and minuses, nothing is perfect for everyone.

You just have to question the usefulness of reading still photos 240 times per second. That is not only video, that is high speed video. Unless you have the literal intention of playing that "video" back on a 240Hz screen at its native rate, the usefulness of such a frame rate for a still camera actually eludes me. Same goes for 60fps. It is one thing to look at 12, 14, 16, maybe 20 fps for a still camera. But at 60fps, and worse at 240fps, one momentary press of the shutter will capture a ton of frames.

Assuming we had image processors that could keep up, a 1/10th second shutter press in AI Servo with a 60fps DSLR would mean you get 6 frames. SIX FRAMES for one tenth of a second. That might get you the best shot up to the moment where an Osprey flexes out its claws in preparation for grabbing a fish....but it would still miss the moment where the fish is in-talon, the moment after it is pulled out of the water. If you hold the shutter down for a full second to get the entire sequence of action...that is SIXTY FRAMES!! I don't even want to think about the issue if we actually had a 240fps frame rate (and an image processing chip that could keep up).

There are bounding limits of practicality here. Not only is there a limit on how LOW of a frame rate you can really have to get enough frames to capture the right moment of action, but there is also a limit on how HIGH of a frame rate is really practical. I'd say a range between 8fps to 20fps is probably it. I don't think I'd want to wade through more than 20 frames per second at the most, and 12-16 is probably really the sweet spot. I'd also venture that the higher the frame rate, the lower you would really want your sensor resolution to be. Lacl of sufficient memory card and disk space would become a huge problem with ultra high frame rates on high or big megapixel sensors. I like 18mp...it's a good number, especially in FF format. Maybe 22, but you'll start having space issues at that point. Even if ultra high stills frame rates are possible, it blows the bounds of practicality.

As far as numbers of megapixels and frame rate are concerned... the real bottleneck is not reading the sensor, it's processing the data afterwards.

For example, we pick on a 60D with a digic4 processor and an 18Mp sensor. It is capable of reading that sensor 60 times per second, but can only process 5.9 frames per second.

And I know this will be controversial, but this is one of those cases where a mirrorless design is superior.... no mirror to shake the camera or to slow down the burst. Even a gopro can read it's 11Mp sensor 240 times per second.... Every design decision has it's plusses and minuses, nothing is perfect for everyone.

You just have to question the usefulness of reading still photos 240 times per second. That is not only video, that is high speed video. Unless you have the literal intention of playing that "video" back on a 240Hz screen at its native rate, the usefulness of such a frame rate for a still camera actually eludes me. Same goes for 60fps. It is one thing to look at 12, 14, 16, maybe 20 fps for a still camera. But at 60fps, and worse at 240fps, one momentary press of the shutter will capture a ton of frames.

Assuming we had image processors that could keep up, a 1/10th second shutter press in AI Servo with a 60fps DSLR would mean you get 6 frames. SIX FRAMES for one tenth of a second. That might get you the best shot up to the moment where an Osprey flexes out its claws in preparation for grabbing a fish....but it would still miss the moment where the fish is in-talon, the moment after it is pulled out of the water. If you hold the shutter down for a full second to get the entire sequence of action...that is SIXTY FRAMES!! I don't even want to think about the issue if we actually had a 240fps frame rate (and an image processing chip that could keep up).

There are bounding limits of practicality here. Not only is there a limit on how LOW of a frame rate you can really have to get enough frames to capture the right moment of action, but there is also a limit on how HIGH of a frame rate is really practical. I'd say a range between 8fps to 20fps is probably it. I don't think I'd want to wade through more than 20 frames per second at the most, and 12-16 is probably really the sweet spot. I'd also venture that the higher the frame rate, the lower you would really want your sensor resolution to be. Lacl of sufficient memory card and disk space would become a huge problem with ultra high frame rates on high or big megapixel sensors. I like 18mp...it's a good number, especially in FF format. Maybe 22, but you'll start having space issues at that point. Even if ultra high stills frame rates are possible, it blows the bounds of practicality.

Exactly!

It's a number, but it is a useless number. Cameras are systems, and the fact that a 60D can read it's sensor 60 times per second would imply that a 1DX should be even faster..... A single number like that is so out of context as to be misleading.... it forgets about shutter delay, processing time, storage time, and probably 100 other things that I am not aware of.

We get so obsessed about a particular component we forget about the rest of the camera